“Some people have a formal, public display and then the real life they live behind the scenes,” he continued. “But when we accuse someone else and we are quick to stone him, we must remember that we all have problems and defects. With modern communications so out of control, it is easy to kill someone’s reputation without even investigating about the truth. We should be quieter and less condemning.”
if these very words had been pronounced by the Unholy Father himself, the entire secular world (including the prostitutes, the drunkards, and the homos) would have applauded the Great Man Of Mercy.
If the same Francis had drawn a parallel between Mary Magdalene and any of your “more pricks than years” women who fill the buses and trains of some Western countries, pointing out to her “problematic past before final deliverance” in a world in which, as we all know, God does no more than slap us on the wrist, it would have been a unanymous choir of approval and praise for the refreshing approach of the Bishop of Rome, humbly reminding us of the sinfulness of human condition, bla, bla, & bla.
Alas, the “who are we to judge” meme was, this time, applied to the wrong person: Marcial Maciel.
Consequently, “who am I to judge” was promptly forgotten, and the priest who had produced himself in such a prime feat of Francis-inspired idiocy was silenced and forced to promptly backpedal.
You see, the non-judgmental society is non-judgmental only when the Pope speaks, or when the people thus protected by the Pope have been declared, in some way or other, protected species.
The rule does not apply, though, whenever Francisspeak should be applied to people whom every liberal, whore, drunkard and faggot in the land think he can and should judge.
How is that for a double standard.
And yes, I do think Maciel was a bastard. I do not know if he saved his perverted, lying, thieving ass in the end, and I am not the one to say. But it strikes me as somewhat odd that all these tidal waves of mercy never apply to people who are on the wrong side of the perverted society, even when they are perverts themselves.
Maciel was, there can be no doubt about that, a first-class, certificate-of-autenticity, prize-winning bastard. But he was ordered to lock himself in a monastery, and in his last years had ample opportunity to repent and prepare himself for the terrible day when he would meet his Maker.
Can’t say we can say the same of the countless sinners who live a life of continuous mortal sin, do not care a fag for God – or if they do, think they are fine because they love the Amazonian Forest – and die fully entrenched in their own confusion and error and perfectly persuaded of their own goodness, whilst Pope Francis tells them that God will slap them on the wrist at most, noone is anyone to judge, and proselytism is a solemn nonsense.
Also, please let us reflect about this: we get almost every comparison from the leftists nutcases (this includes Francis): Jesus the dispossessed and/or destitute (wrong); Jesus the social worker (wrong); Jesus the political reformer (wrong); Jesus the illegal immigrant (wrong); Jesus the cunning deceiver (wrong). These instrumentalisations get a pass from the Catholic press and the mainstream “c”atholics, who get all fuzzy at such comparisons as they feel their own goodness growing within them.
But woe to the one who uses the same categories (“who are we to judge”) and the same stupid comparisons (Mary Magdalene and Marcial Maciel) with a person who has fallen out of grace.
The non-judgmental crowd will judge him mercilessly.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
Sandro Magister, one of the most informed and attentively read Vaticanists, has obtained a rather interesting letter from a member of the gravely disgraced order of the Legionaries of Christ.
Leaving aside for a moment the acute (but well-known) considerations of Magister about the energy of the Pontiff in dealing with a man and an organisation that had been able to acquire a status of almost untouchability during the Pontificate of John Paul The Gullible, Magister points out (with the help of the letter, which he reports in full) to these in my eyes very important facts:
1) The hierarchy within the Legionaries of Christ is still largely the one surrounding Marcial Maciel before his fall from grace.
2) The scale of Maciel’s shameless failings lets it appear more and more unlikely that he could lead his double life without the acquiescence of the people nearest to him…
View original 794 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I might be considered one of “those who are sincerely seeking the one true faith.” Having become fed up with the emotionalistic (is that a word?) qualities of many Protestant denominations, a couple years ago I started making tentative steps towards exploring whether it would be right to “cross the Tiber.” I was deeply moved by reading some of Evelyn Waugh’s books such as Brideshead Revisited, and by some of the works of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Also, the emphasis on intellect and some other qualities drew me towards Catholicism.
But the combination of Pope Francis, his “conservative” admirers, American bishops such as Dolan and the prevalence of “The Church of Nice” in Catholicism has stopped me dead in my tracks. No more movement towards the Tiber for me, at least for the forseeable future. One of the main sticking points for me seems to be the…
View original 1,545 more words
The discovery, reported by Eye of the Tiber, of a planet that could host and support the Maryknoll Fathers opens the way for a humane solution to the problem.
Whilst there are technical problems to be solved and the costs would be not indifferent, the advantages in term of quality of life here on earth would be worth the expense. Once the first batch has been sent, many others could follow. Entire South American seminaries could be sent away without any further question. That the Jesuits would be ideal colonisers is also obvious.
The costs would be substantial. But we could still ask Francis, who is very rich and generous, to cover the costs himself.
I grew up in a Catholic Country. I can vividly remember the time when:
1. No one spoke of his “personal relationship” with Jesus.
2. No layman had a “ministry”, and
3. No one was “moved (or “called”) by the Holy Ghost” to do something.
To this day I can’t avoid being shocked atvthe way some Catholic commenters on the forums (or fora) I read around express themselves. It sounds to me as Protestant as that other habit, of quoting bible verses; as if the Devil could not quote the Bible himself, for his own purposes, at pleasure.
Let us see this a bit more in detail.
1. The traditional Catholic way of looking at the relationship with Jesus does certainly not exclude that this relationship be personal in an obvious way. But the Catholic always sees himself as part of the Church, and he puts this simple fact at the centre of his “relationship”. It’s a collective bond as much as it is an individual one.
The traditional Christian (= pre-Protestant) way of praying very often (not always: think of the Angele Dei) in the plural expresses this cooperative endeavour in a very natural way. Even in the “you and I”, the Catholic mixes the community of the faithful. For a Catholic, it’s always “we”.
The “personal relationship”, on the other hand, smells too much of “two-people rule”, which opens a huge door to any kind of, well, Made-to-measure “personal” rules (interestingly enough, you will notice that seriously orthodox people tend to avoid, even in Anglo-Saxon Countries, the “personal relationship” thing). They are, in my experience, also those for whom Jesus is The Awesomely Awesome Buddy. Not surprising, then with a friend it’s very easy to adjust to each other’s shortcoming, and tailor the relationship to preferred, individualised, and highly convenient patterns of behaviour.
2. The one with the “ministry” was also not heard as I was growing. I would, actually, not even know how to properly say it in my language. Again, it’s not that it cannot be said that every faithful has a role to play; but where I come from, “ministry” was a matter for the priest. Of whom there were, by the by, an awful lot, which probably further discouraged such usages even when the verbiage of V II was introduced in Church life. A layman who would spoken to us about his “ministry” would have been looked at as a funny kind of alien, in the best of cases.
3. Lastly, there is this habit – which grates me most in a Catholic – of saying that the Holy Ghost prompted one to do or not do something, etc. I find the phrase, and the mentality that is behind that, appalling to the point of quasi-blasphemy, and arrogant beyond words. If I (I mean: not St Francis or Padre Pio, but yours truly personally) were so presumptuous as to say to you that “the Holy Ghost inspired me to write a blog”, the inevitable consequence would be to claim for myself not only a special status as “favoured weapon of the Lord” but even, unavoidably, a status of quasi-infallibility for everything I write; it being not really thinkable that the Holy Ghost prompts me to write a blog and is then baffled and surprised at the bad quality of what I write, and all the errors with which I confuse the faithful.
The simple truth is that neither I nor anyone else can make such claims. We know that Providence is at work, but it is not for us to claim to be the help for it sent by the Lord Himself. We do our best as our lights allow us, and we hope that when the day of the redde rationem comes there will be some approval in heaven for what we have done on this earth; procuring us, if we are lucky, some brownie points against the multitude of horrible sins we – I, at least – have committed in our life, and for which I am deeply, deeply ashamed.
I must say that I keep reading these statements in blogs and comments. I suspect that many of them come from former Protestants, who have brought with them a forma mentis that is not the traditional Catholic one. Still, in many cases the influence of the V II newspeak, or of the many Prods in one’s circle of friends and acquaintances, must play a role. It is clear by assisting to certain Catholic Masses that everyone is invited to feel like a MiniMe Messiah, and rejoice at his own’s goodness. I wonder…
I am no Messiah. I have no claim of Official Endorsement. I am a wretched sinner, ashamed of his sinfulness. Just so you know…
Therefore, I will not write a blog, and cry Deus le volt.
As far as this little effort is concerned, I hereby declare the Holy Ghost entirely innocent of whatever piece of senseless drivel and unspeakable bollocks I might have been writing in these commenting and blogging years; senseless drivel and unspeakable bollocks which I dare to declare fully non-existent in my activity of both blogger and commenter; but for which blogging and commenting activity I for myself would even even think of claiming some sort of divine placet.
This little blog aims at defending and promoting Catholic orthodoxy. It does so in a highly personal way, the fruit of the traits – good or bad – of its author’s character. As Catholic truth can be learnt by everyone of sound disposition, there is no need – even if there was the desire – to claim special patents of inspiration. If you think this blog does its job well say a prayer, in your charity, for this wretched sinner. If you think it doesn’t I kindly ask you to avoid it, without being obnoxious and time-waster. In both cases, do not think that my pen is led by anything else than my good will and sincere love for Christ and His Church.
Bishop Galantino is on record with stating that concubines are not allowed to receive Communion. He adds a couple of bla blas, but the message is clear: I haven't said that they can, so get off my neck.
No, of course he hasn't. Not even he is so thick. He has said that they are not allowed, and this is too harsh a punishment and an unjust discrimination.
Galantino is not new to this kind of exercise. Search this blog and read how already in the past he has delivered a truckload of first-class bullcrap, and has then whiningly complained of how misunderstood he was.
Like Francis, this man should have had his ass kicked all the way to the church a long time ago.
Too late now I am afraid, as they are both bishops.
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
I have already written about Bishop Athanasius Schneider here and if you read the blog post you’ll see that Bishop Schneider is not one who takes his role lightly.
Thanks to another excellent comment of Schmenz, I was alerted to this great video from the “Athanasius Contra Mundum” Blog, in which this excellent bishop speaks about communion in the hand.
Many are the interesting issues touched in this fragment of TV interview. The parts which most impressed me are the initial ones, where a young boy (being raised up in a communist regime) is shocked at being informed that in Germany Holy Communion can be received in the hand as if it was a piece of cake. More moving still is the part when the bishop remembers his mother searching for a church distributing communion on the tongue and – after failing to do so – giving in to…
View original 238 more words
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
You may think that the title of this blog post is a joke, but it isn’t.
Taking Lessons from Luther is exactly what our heroes, the “Conciliar Fathers”, should have done once come back to their diocese after V II. Luther would have told them that communion must be:
1. kneeling, and
2. on the tongue
That much is what the great Athanasius Schneider has implied in an interview given to Radio Maria Suedtirol (= Alto Adige), in German, and reported by kreuz.net.
In the words of the Bishop:
„Die Lutheraner haben bis vor kurzem und bis heute noch in den skandinavischen Ländern die kniende Mundkommunion bewahrt.“
The Lutherans have preserved until a short time ago, and to this day in the Scandinavian countries, communion kneeling and on the tongue”.
According to him, the idea of communion in the hand in the way practiced today – the…
View original 123 more words
“Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly”.
The “Catholic Herald” informs us that Francis has sent a “personal gift” of some consistence (“one million”) to the persecuted people in Iraq. Article not online yet, but the headlines on this morning’s CH were very big so this was the message.
One wonders what has happened of the Catholics of old, by whom the left hand did not know what the right hand did. This here reminds me, not for the first time, of the hypocrite who puts himself at a crossroad in order to be seen by everyone when he gives alms. The hypocrite, at least, did not have journalists to blow his trumpet.
Then there is the matter of the provenance of the money. Yes, the Pope is the absolute sovereign of the Vatican, and there is no distinction I know of between the bank accounts of the Vatican and his own patrimony. If it belongs to the Church, it’s his to give.
Still, every dog and cat know this is not money the man earned or inherited. It is not his money qua Jorge Bergoglio. It is “his money” because he is the Pope.
By every other man, it would be considered in extremely bad taste to let money acquired by way of the office appear as “his own money”, even if this happened to be the case. In the case of a Pope, it is in even worse taste. In the case of a Pope feigning poverty everytime is convenient, it is Francis-tasteless.
Do you think his predecessors did not send money away on such occasions? Why did they not let the world know about it, even selling it as “personal gift” of theirs?
And no, there are no excuses. The headline did not say “Francis orders help to be sent to Iraq”, as on other occasions a Government could order such measures. This is a personal gift of the oh so humble Pope.
Poor when it’s convenient.
Rich when it’s convenient.
Sanity is slowly beginning – I am the eternal optimist, I know – to go back in the consciousness of the mainstream, as more and more people realise the oppression of the Gaystapo methods.
This article here makes a very simple point:
Let me pose a hypothetical intellectual challenge: The law that forms the basis for the action against the Giffords in New York is a provision that bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Yet, isn’t that precisely what is happening to the Giffords? Are they not being coerced to accept and approve someone else’s sexual orientation? Are they not permitted to hold their own sexual orientation, one that acknowledges their God’s definition that marriage is a union of one man and one woman? The Giffords are not campaigning to prevent other people from following their own conscience as to their sexual choices and activities. It’s just the opposite. They are being coerced by the state to take part in the sexual choices and activities of others. Isn’t that obvious?”
The man is, of course, perfectly right.
The simple fact is that at some point perverts will lose their “protected status” as a sort of Indian Reserve in the US legal system, and the silent majority will discover that they have, obviously, perverted the very concepts of freedom, equality, or decency. Slowly, normality will start to creep in. We have seen this phases of hysteria followed by (relative) sanity in many issues: from nuclear plant to global warming and from rayon clothes to quartz watches; even abortion is now under strong attack.
Nothing is irreversible. Nothing stupid, anyways.
I hope this faggot-mania will be next. It will take some time, very probably decades, as the debate sets in and new generations grow up for which the faggot isn’t “oppressed” in any meaningful sense of the term, and is rather the oppressor of anyone who does not want to be I do not say in agreement, but an accomplice in his perversion. But I think it will happen one day. Communism seems triumphant in 1979, and was already dying in the most painful, inglorious way only one decade later. Two years later, it was slain even in Russia. When the pendulum starts to swing back, it can go fairly (as world changes go) fast.
It will take time. Let us salute every little step.
Victory is ours anyway.
As more and more sickening details about the events – nay, the entire mentality – in Rotherham – wait: why would this happen only in another ham? – emerge, the first comprehensive reports appear. “Comprehensive” here means mentioning words like “Pakistani” and “Muslim”, and telling it like it is instead of trying to liquidate everything with some words of “apology”.
Go to the site of the Law and Freedom Foundation to read a comprehensive report in instalments. First two parts published as I write this. Will make a good (read: sad) Sunday reading for yours truly.
The liberal leftists want to kill our Christian society and traditional values.
Let us send them to Pakistan to learn “inclusiveness”.
Hat tip: Father Z
Two events of the last days have thrown a rather funny light on the hypocrisy, hate and ugliness of the feminist crowds.
In the first episode, a bunch of leftist (or lesbian) exhibitionists gave life to a topless manifestation in New York, inviting (cough)
modest girls fat, ugly, angry women at war with nature to show themselves in all their ugliness, manboobs (yes, feminists have manboobs; to call them everything else would be sexism…) and all.
If that was an unconscious desire to attract the attention (in the sense of “attraction”) of men, they certainly failed. An ugly feminist is transparent to a man when clothed, and utterly repulsive when bared. If the men’s gaze goes from going through them to going in the opposite direction, I am not sure this is an improvement.
I will spare you the pics. They look like an obscene parody of femininity. Actually, they look like an obscene parody of lesbianism. They reek of the desperation of very ugly sluts who would so like to be whoring around, if they only found the men to do it with. One solitary girl among them has a passable body. Methinks, an exhibitionist, or aspiring actress in search of publicity. She was put at the head of the crowd, in an attempt not to be ridiculed entirely. Again: one looks at the pics and, in a way, understands the perverted mechanics of lesbianism. Ugly, spiteful, hateful, and rejected by men. Oh, and perverted, too.
In the second episode a stunning beauty, the actress Sofia Vergara, is invited to stand on a rotating platform during a not-so-profound TV award ceremony watched by millions. She is elegant and, at least for most people, appropriately dressed. As the platform rotates, we are – all of us: men, and women – showed in a light-hearted, half-joking way the graceful, elegant, utterly un-provocative miracle that is female beauty, God’s Goodness at work. It is no coincidence that in Italy very beautiful women are called, joking on what people learnt in philosophy class, “proof of the existence of God”.
This particular beauty stands there, as the speaker talks about the ability of TV to fascinate the viewers and mixes in the usual tosh about “diversity”. The audience hear him speak but very few, I am sure, really listen to him, because the woman on the platform is, literally, a show-stopper. The platform rotates, allowing the viewers to observe her beauty from every angle, not differently from the way a viewer could walk around the statue of a beautiful woman, or a painter or photographer would observe the model in front of him.
There is nothing obscene in her. There is no baring of breasts, no twerking, perhaps the slightest accentuation of her beauty, but no meaningful provocation of any sort. Beauty is gratifying in itself, and true beauty can never be lewd, because lewdness itself would damage its beauty. Most of the time, the woman simply stands there.
Would you believe it? An army of tweeting feminists – the same ones who, you can bet your watch on it, would applaud nudity in public, and ugly nudity at that – complains Vergara has “objectified” herself. To which yours truly comments: nondum matura est.
Observe the feminist non-logic: a bunch of ugly bitches can expose their ugliness for all the world to see; and this is not disgusting and obscene, but actually good. Then, a very attractive woman stands in front of a camera in the most elegant of manners, and this is not a vision of harmony and a triumph of beauty; no, this is actually bad. They (the feminists) can be obscene, because they’re ugly. She (Vergara) can’t be decent, because she’s beautiful. Feminist non-logic at work. The new frontier of decency.
I suggest that women stop en masse to be “objectified”. Models and mannequins will have to weight at least 100 kg, and look like Elena Kagan. TV ads will have to show rolls of fat very prominently, or not be aired. Feminist land whales will be allowed to stand on a rotating platform, half naked, whilst a presenter explains to the viewers how empowered, and therefore beautiful, they are. And woe to those who dissent, and say that facts are facts, beauty is beautiful, and feminists are ugly.
Actually, we can think this further: as long as a woman tries to remain attractive for her husband, how can she be sure he does not stay with her merely for her beauty – that is: for the “object” – rather than for her wonderful qualities of, say, emancipation, empowerment and constant bitching? Stop worrying about your weight, ladies! Stop the objectification of your beautiful self! Starting from today it’s crisps and muffins like there’s no tomorrow. Your husband will (have to) be grateful that you have forced him to see your “inner beauty”, and that he has been taught to stop “objectifying” you! Or else!
The ugliest among you will be allowed to strip half-naked on TV!
Hey: who is everyone to judge?
Originally posted on Mundabor's Blog:
A remarkable trait of Anglo-Saxon societies is a sort of human right to self-deception, that is being pushed with increasing aggressiveness as these societies become more and more addicted to political correctness.
There seem to be a consensus according to which things are not what they are, but how youfeel they are.This tragic self-delusion aliments itself in the most tragic ways.
At school, children are asked “what is God for you”, and the class listens to a bunch of little kiddies taught to shape after their own liking the most objective, unchangeable Reality there is. They learn to be confused, and to confuse their peers, at a very young age. When they are adults, they will simply export this mentality to their own adult religious convictions, shaping their own “religion” according to taste. The great season of “I am a Catholic, but……
View original 509 more words